Temporal Models of Political Development: In General and of Democratization in Particular

  • Laurence Whitehead
Part of the Challenges to Democracy in the 21st Century book series (CDC)


Terms such as democratization, modernization and transformation all carry with them two tacit implications. First, that the processes under consideration are directional from a previous (probably outmoded and indeed inferior) state towards a subsequent (more advanced, superior, and probably more settled) condition; and second, that consequently such processes are to be viewed positively, even though they may well involve some intervening costs of adjustment.


  1. Elias, Norbert. 1992. Time: An Essay. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Freund, Julien. 1968. The Sociology of Max Weber. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  3. Garreton, Manuel Antonio. 2003. Incomplete Democracy: Political Democratization in Chile and Latin America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  4. Huntington, Samuel P. 1965. Political Development and Political Decay. World Politics 17 (3): 386–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Huntington, Samuel P. 1993. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  6. Inglehart, Ronald, and Wayne E. Baker. 2000. Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values. American Sociological Review 65: 19–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jullien, Franscois. 2015. De L’Etre au Vivre: Lexique euro-chinoise de la pensee. Paris: Gallimard Paris.Google Scholar
  8. Lehoucq, Fabrice. 2005. Costa Rica: Paradise in Doubt. Journal of Democracy 16 (3): 140–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lerner, Daniel. 1964. The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lesgart, Cecilia. 2003. Usos de la Transicion a la Democracia: Ensayo, ciencia y politica en la decada del ‘80”. Buenos Aires: Homo Sapiens.Google Scholar
  11. Linz, Juan J. 1998. Democracy and Time. International Political Science Review 19 (1): 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lipset, Seymor Martin. 1960. Political Man. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  13. Mahoney, James, and Dietrich R. Rueschemeyer. 2003. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marshall, Alfred. 1981. Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Morlino, Leonardo. 2011. Changes for Democracy: Actors, Structures, Processes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. O’Donnell, Guillermo, and Philippe Schmitter. 1986. Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Prospects for Democracy. New York: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Polybius. 1979. The Rise of the Roman Empire. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  18. Przeworski, Adam, and Fernando Limongi. 1997. Modernisation: Theories and Facts. World Politics 49: 155–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Evelyne Huber Stephens, and John D. Stephens. 1992. Capitalist Development and Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  20. Slater, Dan. 2013. Democratic Careening. World Politics 65 (4): 729–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Smolin, Lee. 2013. Time Reborn: From the Future of Physics to the Future of the Universe. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  22. Van Beek, Ursula, and Edmund Wnuk-Lipinski (eds.). 2012. Democracy Under Stress: The Global Crisis and Beyond. Stellenbosch: Sun Press.Google Scholar
  23. Whitehead, Laurence. 2002. Democratisation: Theory and Experience. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wuchenpfennig, Julian, and Franziska Deutch. 2009. Modernization and Democracy: Theories and Evidence Revisited. Accessed September 18, 2017.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nuffield CollegeOxford UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations